I'm working on creating a setting book (or, at least, pamphlet, depending on patience level) for Fate, and I've run what's been done so far by several people. One of my best respondants (in terms of feedback offered) said something particularly important about what's been written so far:

I noticed a dearth of solid campaign hooks in the piece. The primary thing, to me, that sells a setting is a definitive answer to the question, "Why would I want to play here?" Unfortunately, the mere presence of ultra-cool stuff isn't enough, for the most part - take a look at the two most recent Star Wars movies for an example of that. The main thing to know is, "What does a 'typical' campaign look like? What is there to do in the world that would fill six to nine months of gaming?"

I don't know if this is really "wisdom" or anything, probably the opposite, but I have a tendency to come up with a setting easily summarized in a sentence and expand that to a few paragraphs detailing events that lead to that setting's current atmosphere. Then I imagine a variety of reactions individual people may have to the events and current situation of the setting. Then I expand those individual reactions into larger social groups of like-minded, proactive people. Unfortunately, this often winds up with a White Wolf-style splat society with mission-based campaigns. That's good if it's your sort of thing, but I'm trying to go for a tad more variety. It's tough.

iago wrote: What's your wisdom?

iago wrote: So what I'm asking here, is what are the methods, formulae, procedures, and inspirations best used for building a setting that doesn't fall victim to the syndrome described in the quoted text above? I've still got a lot of writing to do before my own setting is done, but ideally, this won't be the only setting I put together, so I think there's some value to be had in looking for some generalizations in setting building -- writing up setting is undeniably my weakest skill, and I'd really like to see if some structure can be "forged" to make the undertaking just a little easier.

What's your wisdom?

Mark Johnson wrote: From what I have seen, you are the archtypical system/mechanics guy. Both Pace and Fate seem highly Sim with Exploration of System as a priority using innovative mechanics (that could probably be drifted to Nar). My feeling is that your setting book probably reads the same way.

However, your critic probably is looking for Sim with exploration of setting, color or situation as a priority (with an off chance that they are narrativist who noticed how your Fate design could be drifted). Your preference and their preference are probably not compatible.

I am not sure that a setting book for Fate should resemble a traditional setting based RPG. I think you should probably look at GURPS as a model to be emulated here. Give the characters tons of Aspects, options, powers, equipment and details on specific settings (Age of Piracy, a steam punk Byzantine Empire, Ragnarok, etc.) I know that this flies in the face of a lot of conventional wisdom here; but it may be apporpriate to your design talents and the type of gamer you are trying to attract.

To summarize: the strength of Fate is the mechanics and I think a setting book should simply explore the mechanics through different settings.

Ben Lehman wrote: Of course, from a designer end perspective, this is impossible. However, I have often found that "what is good for the goose is good for the gander," and a setting designed this way (to create a number of interesting conflicts for the characters) is very portable, because the setting itself raises interesting conflicts for anyone who enters it.

Was that clear as mud?

Ben Lehman wrote: Of course, from a designer end perspective, this is impossible. However, I have often found that "what is good for the goose is good for the gander," and a setting designed this way (to create a number of interesting conflicts for the characters) is very portable, because the setting itself raises interesting conflicts for anyone who enters it.

Was that clear as mud?

iago wrote:
Nah, I get what you're getting at. So, this suggests one particular tool for use:

Create characters for your setting, and then create that which must oppose them. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Sound about right?

I've pretty much helmed the completion of two Multiverser Books of Worlds, and am currently working on the third, and trying to plant the seeds that will lead to the fourth. The books in print have been praised for the variety of approach and content, although the bulk of the writing is mine. Each book contains one major world, about fifty pages, followed by eight smaller ones that unequally divide another roughly one hundred pages between them. So I hope I can contribute something valuable here.
What I ask myself, and what I constantly ask my potential contributors, is, what is this world about? There are several kinds of answers to that.

• This is a world in which there is a lot of opportunity for players to make something happen, but as much opportunity for them to kick back and relax if they make the right choices. Most of our larger worlds take this model. They contain places where "adventures" could happen, where an unwitting player might stumble into trouble or an eager player might venture for a specific purpose. They are less likely to force themselves on the players, and more likely to let the players make something happen in that world.• This is a world where the events and aspects of the world are going to conflict with the character's attitudes and views, such that he's going to have to react somehow for his own integrity. A lot of these are issue worlds, but some are impending disaster worlds. In either case, things are happening that will continue unless the player intervenes.• This is a world where there's going to be a story happening, and either the player is going to get involved or things are going to happen outside his control. These worlds need hooks that will draw the player character into the adventure; they also need flexibility to allow the player character to steer events in surprising ways.


A lot of my worlds begin with the smallest fragment; I began The Farmland by looking at the fields in southern New Jersey's farmlands, and wondering what kind of world I could make of that, and what sort of conflict I could bring into it for the players. However, you can't get very far before you've asked and answered that key question: what is this world about? When we start to play it, where is the focus? Is it on luring the characters into a specific story? Is it on making the characters uncomfortable with the way the world presents itself? Is it on letting the players decide what they want to do? For each of those answers, what are the details? If this is a world in which the player character is going to be made uncomfortable, why? Is it a world in which racism or slavery is accepted as normal, and he a person who sees this as unjust? Is it that he sees the signs of an impending invasion or catastrophe to which others are oblivious? Is the world attempting to make him conform to a mold into which he does not fit?

You can't do all things in one world, generally; at least, you have to decide where the focus is going to be, and put it there. Sure, if you've got a completely open world where the players can go make their own adventures, you mostly need places where there is danger and reward; but it doesn't hurt to have a few suggestions on how to hook them into the danger if they start falling into the rut of doing nothing. But you can't lose site of the fact that this world is about providing opportunities for adventure, not railroading players into one.

So that's the big thing. (And if you missed it, don't worry, they'll say the line again and again and again.) What is this world about?

--M. J. Young

Ben Lehman wrote:
. . .

iago wrote:
Nah, I get what you're getting at. So, this suggests one particular tool for use:

Create characters for your setting, and then create that which must oppose them. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Sound about right?

BL> Yo.

Another way to put it would be:
"Design settings around conflict for the PCs, not around color for the readers."

The difference between a good RPG setting and a poor one is not the stuff that people usually talk about-- Style, Color, Signature NPCs, Genre, etc. It is the ability of the setting to provoke interesting, relevant, and meaningful (in game) conflict that makes it a good setting.

yrs--
--Ben

That's correct HMT, but the same principle elucidated above applies. That is, non-opposing NPCs, places, things, these all still need to be presented in terms of what conflicts might arise surrounding them, and in terms of the characters. So with Lois Lane, it's the fact that she'll get in the PCs way. With the gadgets, they enable the PCs to do their thing, but they get broken, or worse, stolen by the bad guys for bad intent.

As Ron would say, make things "grabby'; meaning that most everything should have some way of reaching out and entagling the characters in some fashion.

Mike